Anything related to hardware (CPU/MoBo/Video/FSB/BIOS, etc.), hardware settings, overclocking, cooling, cool cases, case mods, hardware mods, post pics of your unique creations here.
Alright - I know what you are thinking and don't you even start!
I have a few questions.
Okay, let me start - Why is it that the underclocked Athlon keeps up with the super high clock P4?
How does the Athlon with half as much FSB keep up with the P4?
I'm really wondering, mainly because I'm an AMD man but my bro is the "The P4 has 89trillion MHz FSB and 1.0teragazzilion clock, it is physically imposible for the Athlon to be as good."
Does one have more instructions or the architexture is better, and how so, enabling it to do this and...I'm so lost.
I need understanding...
I need some info to have an intelegent discussion. I mean, it would seem the P4 would be better at like everything, but for some reason the Athlon just keeps up.
Originally posted by sludge I don't literally mean underclocked, I mean the Athlon being like 2.2GHz keeping up with the what 2.8GHz P4?
[edit]Also, doesn't almost everyone know that the Athlons are the best bang for the buck?
The P4 2.4C's are great bang for the buck. They OC to 3 or 3.2GHz out of the box with air cooling and stock voltage, and with a 1GHz FSB with DCDDR400 or higher if you can run 1:1
"Would you mind not standing on my chest, my hats on fire." - The Doctor
Oh also something else I just remembered, the P4's are very strong in Integer, but they made some sacrifices in the original P4 design in the FPU department in lieu of extra instructions like SSE2 etc..
So the FPU may be a tad stronger on the Athlons, but the P4's have a much higher frequency and more special instructions which can make up for that.
"Would you mind not standing on my chest, my hats on fire." - The Doctor
Because GHz/MHz does not actually mean anything in the real world. The only way to compare them fairly is to bench them on very similar systems using similar applications. It's all in the architecture and how the chip actually handles the information. MHz/GHz was created by intel for marketing. But lets see one of those 3.2GHz P4s out do a 128bit IBM chip at 1.2GHz... ya RIGHT. Way more goes into the performance of a CPU than they lead the public to beleive so don't fall into that trap. I like AMDs for most everything, stock 3200+ vs. stock P4 3.2 compare pretty close. If you want to overclock go intel for that already high jumping off platform, but as we know overclocking creates way more problems for the amount of performance you gain from it. Stick with the bench marks for making decisions on chips, not the GHz MHz garbage.
Kyler1
P.S. How the heck did you get that clock on a XP1600+ that is in your sig??
P.S. How the heck did you get that clock on a XP1600+ that is in your sig??
Heh, it amazes me too. I simply raised the FSB from 133 to like 158 or something. (suprisingly, the only thing I can change is the FSB. Can't change the multiplier voltages etc...) What amazes me more is one of the sticks of RAM in my rig is Ultra 266. It's running at such a high speed and stable!
I've got a XFX Kt400ANB, and I'm impressed. I haven't had to raise the vcore or anything. Supposidly it's all automaticly controlled by the board. They compared my board and the A7N8X Deluxe and they got a better OC with my board.
No offense ment to either but I like to think of AMD as the weaker smarter guy and Intel as the stronger, not so smart guy. They can get the same amount of work done but in different ways.
Ya, I've found that the A7N8X is not an ideal OC board. Which is fine for me, I have more speed than I need at this setting.
Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I have a question and figured just bringing this back would work fine.
Okay, so my brother is buying a system, not sure if you that or not, but now you know. Anyways, he's been contemplating over what P4/P4 mobo to get for over a month and every time once he adds everything together it's far too expensive. I keep telling him just to get a Athlon Xp 2500+ Barton and raise the FSB to 200 for a 400MHz FSB/Athlon 3200+, but he doesn't think it would perform as well. He is currently in college and is taking electronics enginering but is also working on stuff like C++. One reason he needs a new computer is for stuff like compiling etc. He thinks the P4 would preform many time better because of the higher memory bandwidth, which to my knowledge is true to an extent. He isn't going to be doing any serious gaming, if any at all. I keep telling him that gaming is pretty much the only area he would really notice the athlon/P4 thing, because of the memory bandwidth. He's also afraid that the Athlon would simply suck compared to the P4 in multitasking, which is also probably true to an extent considering the hyperthreading, but would it really be that different?
Stuff like office, maybe some imaging programs, and like programing programs etc, would it be worth it that much to get the P4?
Any 2000+/2.0GHz or higher chip is gonna handle C++ compiling fine. But again it's personal preference really, everyone thinks they have the right answer. If he is watching money then he should prolly just grab an AMD and maybe OC it a little.
Thanks kyler. Like I said, he could get the Barton 2500+ and just raise the FSB to 200 making it a 3200+. Can't think of much he'd be doing that would "push" that. He could then grab a decent mobo for 70-100 bucks and be set.
If you are reading the system Requirements of a game of software , and it tells you that you need 2 GH or more processor .... on an AMD do you go by the + rating or tha ACTUAL GH rating ?? would a 2500+ ( wich is technically what 1.8 ? ) work ?
3200+ = 2.2 GH
Network Engineer for Linux/Windows/Netware servers and connectivity for remotes sites via VPN in Roanoke, VA.
Originally posted by Mytflyguy I have a simlar question ....
If you are reading the system Requirements of a game of software , and it tells you that you need 2 GH or more processor .... on an AMD do you go by the + rating or tha ACTUAL GH rating ?? would a 2500+ ( wich is technically what 1.8 ? ) work ?
3200+ = 2.2 GH
AMD markets there chips with those numbers because there 3200+ runs like a P4 @ 3.2. On AMD go by the number, not the GHz.
Like when computer iliterate people ask how fast my CPU is I just say 3GHz for my 3000+ because that is how the general public has been taught to read chip speeds.
Originally posted by sludge Thanks kyler. Like I said, he could get the Barton 2500+ and just raise the FSB to 200 making it a 3200+. Can't think of much he'd be doing that would "push" that. He could then grab a decent mobo for 70-100 bucks and be set.
Anyone else have opinions?
Not sure if you are gonna get that OC on air cooling, depends alot on the board. Most I have gotten on my 3000+ with the best air cooling and on a A7N8X Deluxe is an extra 15MHz Core (30MHz FSB).
The A7N8X is not the best OC board so you'll need to get a good OC board, Epox maybe.
AMD's naming scheme that began in fall of 2001: "The rating scheme is supposed to represent how fast the Athlon XP's are in comparison to a Thunderbird Athlon. For example, the 1.53 GHz Athlon is PR rated to 1800+. This means AMD says the 1.53 GHz Athlon is the same speed of an 1800 MHz Thunderbird processor. Here's a quick chart explaining the XP's new rating system."
Originally posted by YeOldeStonecat AMD's naming scheme that began in fall of 2001: "The rating scheme is supposed to represent how fast the Athlon XP's are in comparison to a Thunderbird Athlon. For example, the 1.53 GHz Athlon is PR rated to 1800+. This means AMD says the 1.53 GHz Athlon is the same speed of an 1800 MHz Thunderbird processor. Here's a quick chart explaining the XP's new rating system."
Yup, and the thunderbirds run about MHz per MHz to the P4s, sorry Intel fanboys but stock P4 3.2 runs pretty darn close to a stock XP3200+, as do the 2000+ and 2.0, and 2800+ to 2.8. You can still consider a 3200+ as a 3.2 for system requirements.
Like every 580 review over at NewEgg say they just up the FSb to 200 on the 2500+ barton. Most just buy a stick of thermal gell and use stock cooling and they all say it works great.
Originally posted by sludge Like every 580 review over at NewEgg say they just up the FSb to 200 on the 2500+ barton. Most just buy a stick of thermal gell and use stock cooling and they all say it works great.
I wish I woulc get my 3000+ over 211 FSB ... Everyone I know who has tried to take it over that loses stqability ... It's like a brick wall on this model .... ( or at least my stepping )
Network Engineer for Linux/Windows/Netware servers and connectivity for remotes sites via VPN in Roanoke, VA.
Originally posted by Kyler1 Yup, and the thunderbirds run about MHz per MHz to the P4s, sorry Intel fanboys but stock P4 3.2 runs pretty darn close to a stock XP3200+, as do the 2000+ and 2.0, and 2800+ to 2.8. You can still consider a 3200+ as a 3.2 for system requirements.
Kyler1
I disagree there. Review GamePC test of 3.2 against 3200+...after reading the test, you'll see the 3200+ almost runs pretty darn close to the 3.2...but still sniffing the exhaust pipes of the Intel in all tests.
You can try to stretch the analogy of the naming scheme, but AMD did it, their own words, based on XP performance according to T-Bird speeds. They're stuck with it now.
BTW, I own both types of CPU's. Myself, I prefer the P4 with HT.
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
What I'm saying is the Xp 2500+ Barton is $80, retail box. The P4 2.6GHz is like $180. The Barton should OC to 3200+ without a hitch, and run fine at that. I know that core P4 and all OCs extremely well, also, but when you consider the price difference. I'm saying for a college kid don't you think the 2500+ Barton OCed to 3200+ is his best choice(money limited)?
Originally posted by Mytflyguy Hahaha He says with 3 A7N8X deux rigs ... lmao
Hehe, ya I like the features and stability, I'm not into OCing AMDs... just can't get as excited about there OCs as P4s.
Originally posted by YeOldeStonecat but still sniffing the exhaust pipes of the Intel in all tests.
I said close, I have seen many "AMD vs. Intel" reviews, all claiming to be the one that finds the victor, and many AMD win, many Intel win, they are very close chips, and both have strong points. Period.
Originally posted by Kyler1
I said close, I have seen many "AMD vs. Intel" reviews, all claiming to be the one that finds the victor, and many AMD win, many Intel win, they are very close chips, and both have strong points. Period.
I haven't seen much but the majority of sites give the nod to the P4 since the P4C with HT has hit the streets. Especially in gaming...even the 2.6C takes out the 3200+. I'd say "close" 2 years ago, but not for the past year.
Yeah they flip flop every year or two as to who's the absolute top performer..but since Intel did the 800fsb P4C's...they took the crown a while ago, and plan on holding onto it for a while.
Originally posted by Mark then there is always the 64bit AMD cpu's, from what i have read they hold their own as far as video encoding ect.
or am i wrong on this ?
All the reviews I have read hail the Athlon64s for gaming right now, though they lose a little performance in other areas. I don't really have much information on them though. But I do know that Intel needs to get there 64bit consumer chip out for some competition and price drops!
Originally posted by YeOldeStonecat I haven't seen much but the majority of sites give the nod to the P4 since the P4C with HT has hit the streets. Especially in gaming...even the 2.6C takes out the 3200+. I'd say "close" 2 years ago, but not for the past year.
Yeah they flip flop every year or two as to who's the absolute top performer..but since Intel did the 800fsb P4C's...they took the crown a while ago, and plan on holding onto it for a while.
I'll let you know when my 3k+ stops out benching my buddies 3.2.
What amazes me more is one of the sticks of RAM in my rig is Ultra 266. It's running at such a high speed and stable!
